Moment of Inertia: Mass Distribution & Coefficient

AI Thread Summary
A higher coefficient of moment of inertia indicates that an object is harder to rotate compared to one with a lower coefficient, primarily due to mass distribution. In a classroom experiment, a full can of beans rolled faster than an empty can because its mass was distributed closer to the axis of rotation, resulting in a lower moment of inertia (I=1/2mr²) compared to the empty can (I=mr²). This difference in distribution affects how potential energy converts to kinetic energy, with the full can converting more energy to translational motion. The discussion emphasizes that the coefficient relates to mass distribution rather than total mass alone. Ultimately, the distribution of mass significantly influences the rotational and translational dynamics of the objects.
fk378
Messages
366
Reaction score
0
This is a general question:
Does a higher coefficient for moment of inertia imply that it is harder for the object to rotate than for an object with a smaller coefficient?


We did this experiment in class where we rolled an empty can and then a can full of beans. The can of beans rolled faster than the empty can. We said that the can of beans was more massive, the mass was distributed closer to the axis, and I=1/2 mr^2 but ...meanwhile the empty can is less massive, the mass was distributed further from the axis and I=mr^2.

Does the coefficient have to do with it or is it just because of the mass distribution?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The "coefficient" you are talking about is a consequence of its distribution.

Actually it is the sum of all the little weights times their respective distances from the rotation that make up an object summed across the volume of the object. With most of the mass close to the radius then an empty can will be more like mr² and a full can more like 1/2mr².

Looking at the conservation of energy then an object will carry at the bottom of a ramp a velocity that satisfies the potential to kinetic relationship. If it's a frictionless ramp then v2 = 2gh.

Note that this is independent of total mass and assumes no rotational kinetic energy. Just like dropping objects with no air friction results in the same times regardless of mass.

Now to the empty and full cans, the full can will have greater mass, that you can ignore, but its distribution results in just half as much (1/2mr²)of the potential energy going to rotational kinetic energy and hence more will be in the translational kinetic energy and will be faster at the bottom.

The empty can having closer to a full mr² will take more kinetic rotational energy and less will be left for translational velocity.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top